Self-Evident Truth

[Guest guest]

LA 85-4

Self Evident Truth

 

30 June 1985, Los Angeles, California: Evening

 

What is valid knowledge? What is valid evidence for knowledge? That whole subject of knowing is called epistemology, the theory of knowledge. Not all of us are radically skeptical. In other words, we don’t deny all knowledge. There are some people (I think unfortunate people) who just deny everything and in so doing deny any certain knowledge. Most of us are not like that. We may be empirical, philosophical, religious or whatever, but practically everyone accepts some type of knowledge as real. If you say that “I don’t believe any knowledge” is certain, the question is do you believe that’s certain? Do you believe the knowledge that no knowledge is certain is certain knowledge? So even the skeptical is in a sense a hypocrite. Everyone really no matter what their position, accepts some type of knowledge as valid.

 

Implicit in the position of each individual is the idea that we as living beings, as persons, possess a faculty for knowing. And that is axiomatic. Aristotle argued if you are not careful you can get trapped in an infinite regress of proofs. In other words, how do you know? Well by this… Well how do you know that you know? How do you know that you know that you know? It’s basically like that, you can go back infinitely. He said this is pointless. You can do that if you want, but it’s obvious that’s not really going to bring anyone to knowledge. Therefore it’s not really the right process because it’s not going to be fruitful. We don’t want to get trapped in an infinite regress. To Aristotle the search for truth is like an army in route –– at some point the army has to stop and take a stand. In other words, at some point you have to stop and say, “I accept this as a self evident truth”. Self-evident meaning it doesn‘t require any other proof.

 

Take the fact you are reading this book. You are not going to prove with absolute empiricism that you exist, this book exist, and all this is really happening because you may end up in a looney bin. Do you see? It’s obviously happening, it’s self-evident. It validates itself as an experience. Do you think the people at NASA bother proving the world exists? They consider that to be self-evidently true. Also, that same philosophical language was used by the educated men who wrote the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.” You see? You can’t prove that. Empirically, all men are created very unequally; their IQ’s, their muscles, their wealth, their beauty, their everything. And yet our founding fathers said we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equally. So, obviously that equality is not physical, it is metaphysical. In other words, to the framers of the Declaration of Independence, it was a self-evident metaphysical truth that despite our material differences, somehow as souls we all have an equal status. That‘s obviously not a material idea. Actually, it’s a metaphysical idea. (Its funny, because those who want to insist on a very rigid separation of religion from public life forget the fact that the whole concept of democracy is based on a metaphysical principle).

 

So in Krsna consciousness or in God consciousness - in spiritual life - there are also things which are self-evidently true. Remember, that faith already exists in everyone. You already believe you have the capacity to recognize truth in certain situations. And now in spiritual life you are told you can expand the ability to recognize truth in even greater situations because you are part of God. God is omniscient, so in your own way you can also know everything. You may not quantitatively know everything like how many hairs are on your head or what the atomic weight of Hydrogen is and so forth… or what someone in China is doing right now. You may not know the totality of all information. But you can know the purpose and the quality of everything. That you can know. Just like you can perceive the beauty and atmosphere of the forest. You don’t know exactly how many trees are there. So there are different types of knowledge. Because you are part of God you can know the ultimate nature of everything. And that knowledge is the most fundamental knowledge. Not only does it not need to be verified by other types of information, but that spiritual insight itself is the ultimate verifier.

 

It is not completely mystical though. It is not just that there is some mystical sixth sense we awaken and then we know all. There are also books by which we verify spiritual insight. In science there is a formula or rule and then you can perform an operation and verify that rule. So even in science we observe that we have articulated principles or information, we have operations to verify or enact them, and then we have persons who themselves are authoritative. There are expert persons who are considered to be the embodiment of a particular discipline. Similiarly in spiritual life, there are principles which are articulated in the scriptures, there are operations to verify those principles and there are authoritative persons. And just as you agree to function within this world because it appears self-evident to you that it’s real, when you participate in spiritual life, you’ll also be satisfied the experience is real. When you stop at a red light or talk to people, you are obviously aware that these things are actually taking place. You are satisfied the experience is real. You don't demand a proof for it. Why should spiritual life be any different? It is not just a mystic experience where you see a blinding light, but it’s a steady awareness of a higher dimension of life. And you realize you yourself are part of that higher reality. You yourself are eternal. For example, when you were a child, you couldn‘t function as a scientist for NASA or whatever. You just didn’t have the emotional maturity to work in that way and you also couldn‘t deal with the types of information and concepts that are involved with that. Its just a level of reality that inaccessible to you when you were a young child. But now that you’ve matured and you’ve become aware of this expanded world, beyond the world of your infancy - you very naturally function in that larger world. Isn’t it?

 

Guest: Something a little troubling is the more you learn the more you find out that the less you know. Knowledge is like relative. I have a hard time like dealing sometimes with the conceptual kind of things because I get the conceptual kind of things, if you think about it and wonder why it’s like that.

Hridy: Exactly. That’s what Socrates said. Socrates was dissatisfied with the previous philosophers because he said they were always asking the question how, but the real question is why. In other words, the planets may spin this way or that. Whatever they are doing out there, however hot that particular star is, for how many miles it is from the earth –– the real point is why. Why does it exists at all? And what is it’s purpose? Why do I exists and what is my purpose in relation to this cosmos? That is the why question. And the why question inevitable leads you, as it did with Socrates, to self-realization because to know why the world is the way it is, you have to consider “Why am I what I am?” So, the why question is valid. The why question is valid because God is a person. Therefore the question why is a legitimate question.

[Guest guest]

Unfortunately, modern science has attempted to merge the why and how questions. Let's take an ordinary example: The wind blows and knocks a leaf off a tree. So I say “why did that happen?” And you say “the leaf fell off the tree because the wind blew.” But in a sense, you are answering the question how. If I say, “well that‘s not what I mean, my question was deeper, I mean why did the wind blow at that time?” You say “Oh that’s that’s because of certain atmospheric conditions and high pressure systems... ” I reiterate “No, that‘s not what I’m getting at. I’m not asking for a more elaborate explanation of the mechanics of it. I want to know why did it happen?” In other words, what I’m really getting at in pushing for this answer to the why question is who‘s responsible? Who did it? What I’m really asking is who. Who desired it to happen and why did they desire it to happen? So, if you push this why question to it’s deeper sense, what we are really looking for is intentionality. We are actually looking for a person. Motivation. Desires. Someone did it because he wanted this or that to happen. Lets say someone commits a crime and you ask why did they do it? What did they hope to gain by this? I wonder what they were they thinking? So this question why? Why are things the way they are? What we are really pushing for is a personal concept of destiny or God. And that‘s why in a world which is so dominated by impersonal views – mechanistic world views and so on – we don’t get an answer to this deeper why question. Therefore, we are frustrated and we sort of grope at it. Well, why is it happening and what’s it really all about? What we are really groping for in the dark, what we really mean to say is Who‘s in charge of all this? And what is their intention? What are they really trying to do? And why are they doing it?

 

Sometimes the argument is given that we want security, we want ultimate explanations, therefore we create God. That’s sort of a stupid argument because if you think about nature we tend to want things that actually exists. It’s not because we thirst, we create water. Not at all, it’s the opposite. We are thirsty because there is water and because we are meant to drink water. We become hungry. We don’t create food. There is food. In fact, hunger and thirst are nature’s way of telling us there is something that we need and we should go and get it. It’s really out there. So the hunger we have for God or for the Absolute Truth is nature’s way of telling us there is a God and we need Him. We should go and find God. I mean we shouldn’t be embarrassed at the fact we aren’t God.

 

People say religion is a crutch. No, it is not a crutch. Is water a crutch? Is food a crutch? Is having a family a crutch? Is breathing a crutch? If you study the word crutch, what does that analogy get at? It means to say someone is not normal. Normal people don‘t use crutches. Healthy people don’t use crutches. People who are less than ordinary use a crutch to compensate for their inferiority. Normal people don‘t need God and if you do need God it is just because of your own psychological weakness. Therefore you use some metaphysical idea to bolster your weak mind. That is what the analogy means to say. Actually, that is not at all true. We can probably demonstrate the people who aren’t interested in God live in the grand delusion that they themselves are the greatest. And that, in fact, I would have to say is a type of crutch in the sense it is an artificial device to bolster up a weak minded person. In other words, some people are so psychologically sick they actually can’t face the fact they are not the supreme, they are not the center of reality. They are egocentric. Therefore in their pathological state they try to bolster themselves up by saying, “I’m God” or “I’m the center of everything” or “there is no God” or “no one can know.”

 

I mean with what possible authority could a person say there is no God? I think according to logic, that statement could not possibly be authoritative. Because if there is no God –– let’s say hypothetically there is no God –– there is no omniscient being. If there is no omniscient being, no one knows everything. That means there is something everyone doesn’t know. So, why can’t that something be God? In other words, if no one is omniscient, then who could say there is no God? How could someone who doesn’t know everything say there is no God? That is my challenge. Logically, if there are things you don’t know, how can you make statements about the totality of reality? How can people who only know a little bit of reality make statements about all of it? Therefore, if you say there is no God, how could that statement be authoritative? You may say “Well, it’s just a lucky guess. Maybe there isn’t a God and I just happen to hit upon it.” But what internal consistency does that statement have? If you make a statement that creates certain conditions which nullify the possibility of verifying the statement, then the statement is not very promising. If you say “There is a God… ” Let’s say we are now just making hypothetical statements. We are making assertions as a springboard for analysis. Now if you say there is a God, then you are proposing the existence of an entity such that if the entity exists, verification is possible. Therefore, the statement lends itself to further research. On the other hand, if you say “There is no God”, then by definition no one could possibly verify it because no one knows everything. Certainly, we don’t even know things about the earth, what to speak of beyond the earth. The universe is a big place. So if you say there is no God, that statement does not lend itself to much further analysis because the statement itself denies the existence of anyone qualified to ultimately verify the statement.

 

Even if someone was philosophically neutral, and just was trying to understand, he would find the assertion “there is a God” as a starting point for analysis. It would be more interesting. Because if there is a God you can immediately start your process for verification. You can start praying and doing all kinds of things to investigate it. It’s like saying, “I’d like to have gold. I don’t know if there is gold or not, so my starting point is there is no gold.” In a desert, I’m desperately searching for water, so let’s presume there is no water and start from that point. In other words, if you are in a desert and thirsty you say, “Well I don’t know if there is water or not, but I sure hope there is. Lets just look for it.” That is a positive approach. Let’s hope there is water, let’s try to find our way out of this. That’s human nature actually, to try to achieve the best. So why would someone prefer –– even if someone isn’t sure if there is God or not –– as a starting point, the useless or dead-end assertion that there is no God? If there is a God can live forever, I can become perfect. If there isn’t, it’s quickly over, it’s curtains. So there is something actually wrong about wanting to think there is no God. There is something psychologically wrong with it. It’s not just a philosophical position. I don’t detect any philosophical neutrality in that position at all.

Guest: Philosophy a hundred years ago stated that the prerequisite for believing in God, the authority in God, was unbelievable. The definition of God was unbelievable essentially because He didn’t show Himself to all of us.

 

Hridy: Oh, so God is real only if he shows himself to everyone. Now is that rational? There is the basic definitions of God. That God is all knowing, good, and these qualities don‘t show themselves here on earth. Wait a second. First of all, lets just take those propositions one by one. First of all, the idea that God is real only if he shows himself to everyone.

Guest: Or just discloses himself to anybody.

Hridy: Well good, God discloses himself to me, to him, to lots of people.

Guest: But you can’t, you can’t prove that to the philosopher.

Hridy: Well wait a second. First of all, the idea of proving to the philosopher I hold is fundamentally irrational because in ordinary situations when we use the word prove, it is implicit if not explicit, things are to be proven to a qualified observer. If I’m a nuclear scientist and I’ve just invented a new formula, I don‘t have to prove it to Jackie Gleason or Archie Bunker or the Cisco Kid. To whom do I have to prove it?

Guest: The scientific community.

Hridy: Exactly. So now if I am to prove the existence of God. To whom do I have to prove it. Isn‘t it really begging the question? You see? If if if the whole issue is what is the proper methodology for knowing God… What is the process for knowing God? Now, the philosopher of coarse, has bet his marbles on logical speculation. Well, that’s what philosophers do. They employ logic and they speculate. Don’t they?

Guest: Ummm, up to a few hundred years ago, I’d say that’s true.

Hridy: They don’t engage nowadays in analysis?

Guest: In analysis, Yes.

Hridy: That’s what I mean.

Guest: But, in metaphysical speculation... No I didn’t say metaphysical, I just said speculation.

Guest: Well, they weigh truths or correctnesses back and forth.

Hridy: Well, alright, so semantics. Anyway, they analyze and try to imply logic. Isn’t it? So now, if God has to be proven to them, isn’t that presuming their process is the appropriate one for knowing God? In other words, they are presupposing the nature of God by saying if God exist, his nature would be such that he could be proved to us, in our language and according to our methods. Now isn’t that quite presumptuous?

Guest: Well, the philosophers aren’t giving the attributes of God.

Hridy: No, indirectly they are because they are saying God has to be demonstrated to us. Now there are millions if not billions of people on earth who will say God showed himself to me. Now the philosopher doesn‘t accept that testimony. On what grounds does he reject that testimony?

Hridy: Well, there are methods of logic that have to be...

Hridy: But yes, therefore they are presuming...

Guest: Well there is a lot of children in the world that believe in bunny rabbits, Santa Claus and unicorns too...

[Guest guest]

Hridy: And there is a lot of people who believe in the bunny rabbits and unicorns of material philosophy. So you can make sarcastic remarks. But I can say their philosophy is mythology. Now, now my point is if you demand that God be proved to them, aren’t you presupposing they are somehow qualified to evaluate God? And therefore in some way, Gods nature is such that people trained in a particular methodology are the ones qualified to evaluate his existence. Now I want to know what the basis is of that presupposition. I want to know why that assumption is authoritative.

Guest: I don’t think they have such an assumption of a...

Hridy: But you just got thru saying they don’t accept God because it has not been proved to them. Now, implicit in that position is the assumption on their part – which I am challenging – that if God exist, his nature should be such that he could be demonstrated to philosophers in their terms and according to their very specific methodologies which represent only one particular way of trying to understand things.

 

Guest: I don’t think they would be so dogmatic as to say that.

Hridy: Well, how could they not be? Then why don‘t they accept if I tell them, “Yes God has shown himself to me. I chant Hare Krsna and I perceive God.” Now is that authoritative for a philosopher? He would say no. Well then they are dogmatic. Why do you say they are not dogmatic? They demand God be demonstrated to them according to a particular method. I want to know why, on what basis, it is meaningful to say God exist only if he can be demonstrated to a particular group of people employing particular methodologies? I want to know why, a priori, I have to accept the spiritual validity of those people and those methodologies. I want to know why I have to take that position? What does it mean to say that? On what basis can you make that assertion? Yes, you can play the devil’s advocate.

Guest: I’ll be the devils advocate. The philosopher would say that you don’t have to accept that authority at all.

Hridy: So, therefore, when they say God has not been proved to us, they cannot really say God doesn‘t exist. All they can say is we are not aware of God. Now unfortunately, I don‘t think they are really are humble or even sane enough to limit themselves to that kind of disclaimer, “we don’t know God.” I think what they actually –– because I also have read philosophy books and talked to philosophers –– have the audacity and the ignorance to say is God is dead or God has not been proved. They don‘t say that God has not been proved to a particular community of people practicing certain limiting methodologies. What they in fact say is that God has not been proved.

Guest: ???

Hridy: Well, that is not the model which has come down to us, is it? I just read for example, I can show you, I have it right here, in my room, a description of the philosophy courses for the Fall of 1985 at the University of California in Berkeley, an August institution, you know rated a the top. In one of the courses, one of the philosopher’s said“ since in a since God is dead…” Now, of coarse we are just talking now about impressions. Philosophers, especially the big ones, don’t give the impression to me they are simply humbly making assertions about their own beliefs and so on. I definitely pick up that they actually think they are talking about reality. That’s what I pick up from them. You may think they are actually very humble.

Guest: It depends on which one you are talking about of course.

Hridy: But in general, I mean there is a type of language they use, a type of a etiquette and just a type of methodology. And in that language and methodology, it’s not extremely humble. They do make statements like, it has not been demonstrated that. It has not been proved. This idea has now been disproved. They don’t put in too many qualifiers like in our community, according to our methods.

 

I mean they actually do tend to believe they are dealing with reality. They tend to actually convince themselves of that. That’s why to a large extent philosophy becomes irrelevant to 99.9% of the people. Anyway, apart from that, what I mean to say is if you admit that philosophy is a type of game being played by a small group of people (who consider themselves certainly to be an elite group), conversation going on for two and one-half millennia… You know, they are just talking to themselves, they are not necessarily talking about reality. And in this game – according to the rules of their game – they haven’t perceived God yet. Now if you want to present it in that sort of humble way, maybe that would be an historically accurate assertion. However, they don’t present it in such a humble way and also, an additional point is that after 2500 years they can’t figure out what God is, they are barking up the wrong tree with all their analysis.

 

Now, the point we are getting at here is to say that God has not been proved or you just said that a hundred years ago the philosophers decided we don‘t know if we can accept God anymore… First of all, I would say it is fundamentally irrational, fundamentally unphilosophical and irrational, to presume axiomatically… because there is certainly no evidence that if God exists, He would be accessible or knowable through the means of material philosophy rather that through the means of devotion and worship and so on. I hold that that assumption is fundamentally irrational because it presupposes the nature of God in a very limited way which practically visciates the possibility of the concept of God even explaining our existence.

 

If a cause is actually to explain an effect, then somehow the cause should be adequate to explain the effect. It is just like if I enter a room and find it flooded to the ceiling and say, My God, what happened here? And you say, Well, Karen just spilled a cup of water. Now obviously, that wouldn‘t be a very good explanation because the amount of water in a cup – even if it spilled – really wouldn’t explain a whole room being filled to the ceiling with water. So, we reject that explanation of why the room is filled with water. It’s not because she spilled a cup. So in the same way, if we are trying to find the ultimate cause of everything, the cause has to be adequate enough to really explain things. Otherwise, it is just not a good theory. It doesn’t really explain things. So, here we are. Lets say we’re philosophers, we’re persons, we are living beings. We are conscious and have determination and curiosity and rationality and all these good things. And we are trying to understand God or the truth. Lets say truth, not God. Now, inevitably in any investigation we bring to that investigation certain ideas. Because obviously without ideas you don’t know where to investigate, you don‘t know where to begin. Obviously, you conduct an investigation with some prior expectations or whatever. Science is like that: you are trying to find something. If you are looking for gold, you must have some idea of gold or you don’t look for it. So we are persons, we have feelings. One of our feelings is a desire for knowledge. So therefore, if God or if the truth when we find it is suppose to explain our existence, there would have to be something in that ultimate cause which can account for our existence. Because if the truth cannot account for our existence it is just a bad theory.

[Guest guest]

Now, our existence is highly personal. In addition to its rational aspects, it is also personal. Even our rationality is personally conducted. We as persons, apply our reason to different areas and we select those areas personally. So, we can’t logically deny the existence of a personal aspect in the truth because if we did it wouldn’t explain our existence. And if there is a personal aspect in the truth, then why in the hell are we approaching it in such a dry, speculative way? Why don’t we try to be a little personal in our approach? In other words you care about God, you have to love God. And and if you don’t bring to your investigation some personal sensitivity, then in effect, whether you admit it or not, you’re presupposing the impersonal nature of the absolute. It’s just like you, when you walk into this room, if we just pick you up and put you in a chair or just walked on you or just treated you in general like furniture that wouldn’t be very good. If we wanted to investigate you and start measuring you or just conducting operations on you, you’d probably would wonder where you were and what was going on and who all these crazy people were. When you come in we treat you like a person. And because we first treated you like a person – welcome, please sit down” and so on – therefore, we are now talking. You can tell me what you think and I can say you what I think and we can get to know each other because there is mutual respect that you’re a person and I’m a person. So in the same way, where is that mutual respect in searching for the truth? The philosopher, the investigator, is a person. But where is his respect for the object of his knowledge? Why isn’t he sensitive that which he is searching for may be just as personal as he is? And if the truth is just as personal as he is, or more personal, why is he being so analytic and dry about it, as if the highest truth were just some type of thing you can take apart, analyze and poke it here and there to see what happens?

 

It is the impersonal philosophy that comes to the conclusion that God is dead, that God hasn’t been proved. Because people that treat God personally do get experiences of God, and that’s a fact. You can know God. I can state that absolutely. You can know God, God does exist, and if you don’t perceive God it’s because either you are not approaching God or your approach is very insensitive and callous in which you think you are the big scholar, you’re the big brain and the truth simply exist for you to discover so you can get all the credit and be a big-shot and all that. So all this egotistical so-called searching, you know, I mean, you say well here is a book where God reveals himself. Don’t tell me, don’t tell me what God said, I don‘t want to know. I have to discover it. You know all this rugged intellectual individualism it’s just petty egotism, actually. I mean just go to an average philosophy department if you want to see some real amazing egotism.

Guest: Good modern philosophy I don’t think is is approached in that manner. Fundamental ontology and phenomenology is based in care and concern for everything.

Hridy: But there are assumptions. But there are assumptions.

Guest: The basic idea is that everything that we know is actually part of our care and concern. Our being,, our knowledge our desires, are all part of this realm of care and concern. That’s basically modern fundamental ontology these days.

Hridy: Well, what does that mean? That sounds like the boy scouts. You know, care and concern. So the boy scouts also, you know, are caring and concern and what’s the difference?

Guest: No, no no. Not that.

Hridy: Well, what is it then?

Guest: Care and concern is actually um our fundamental approach to life itself .

Hridy: Then let me ask you then. If there is an absolute truth, wouldn’t we expect to find care and concern in that truth?

Guest: Absolutely.

Hridy: Therefore, if in God or the absolute truth or whatever you call it there is care and concern, then would the process for finding that caring concerned being be merely analysis? Wouldn’t there be a relationship? Just like with me and you. We can discuss and argue and so on but there is also a personal relationship. So, in the same way, what attempt do these philosophers… What I mean to say is that if you know that you are going to talk to a person… Lets say you are going to talk to a philosophy professor. You have to observe some etiquette. I just talked to one today, and they can really give you a bums rush sometimes. I mean you really gotta say the right thing and be nice and make all kinds of personal things. Otherwise, they won’t even talk to you. And who are they? They are just some insignificant people who twenty years from now will be dead and forgotten. So my point is with the philosopher himself, you first have to be personal and observe some etiquette and then you can talk to him. If you take a philosophy class unless you observe certain personal etiquette, they won’t even deal with you. So why is it not necessary to observe some personal etiquette with the absolute truth, which is the goal of philosophy? What type of personal etiquette do they observe with the truth? Why type of personal respect do they show for the truth? They care and are concerned, but in what sense do they care for God? In what sense are they concerned about the feelings of God?

Guest: There desire to know.

Hridy: No. That doesn‘t mean I desire to know about you, that doesn’t mean I care about you. I may just be curious. I may have some ulterior motive. I may just think the knowledge is interesting for me. It doesn’t mean I love you.

Guest: I don’t think philosophers are that impersonal. I don’t think philosophers are that impersonal to look at everything so...

Hridy: What I mean to say is, I made a statement that the mere fact I want to know… What if I want to know for my own benefit? There is something fundamentally impersonal about selfishness.

Guest: Sure.

Hridy: Yes. So therefore, what if I desire to know for my own sake cause I think it is good for me. I enjoy knowing.

Guest: That’s good.

Hridy: Oh it is. But if I want to know for my own sake that doesn’t mean I actually respect that which I am knowing. It doesn’t mean I have personal concern for the object. It is just like I want to eat an apple. I want to eat an apple cause I’m hungry and I like the taste of apples. It doesn‘t mean I love the apple. It just means the apple is useful. I can use it for something.

Guest: Then you are just negating it to an object.

Hridy: That’s exactly what the philosophers do with God. I don’t mean every last one of them obviously. But I but in general that is the party line. Don’t forget in academic fields they have their individual feelings, they may be religious or this or that or whatever. But there is a party line. There is an official line at Harvard, at Berkeley, at Princeton. I don‘t know if you’ve gone to these places. I have. These are the schools in charge. I mean they rule the roosts. You you may be at a nice little school where they have some nice people in the faculty. It’s great, I’m glad to here it. But, there is a philosophical discipline organized all over the western world. There definitely is a hierarchy that is highly organized and stratified and everyone knows who’s who and what’s what and who’s on top and who’s on the bottom. They have a party line. And that party line is more or less as I’m describing it. So my point is sometimes in smaller schools you do run across some nice people who actually want to teach and they are nice human beings and all that and I don‘t deny that. But there is a party line. It’s just like in Russia you can find some very religious people. But the official position is atheism. Although many Russians are actually wonderful people. So I’m sure many philosophy teachers are wonderful people.

Guest: I don’t think that analogy is fair.

Hridy: Well I think it is very fair. Just go to Harvard and Berkeley and Princeton and see how fair it is.

Guest: That’s what happens when these things get institutionalized. The same thing happens within science. Science has a similar kind of structure which parallels other other fields of knowledge.

Hridy: You know, that in the world of science, an individual scientist may be a born again Christian, he may be a yogi, he may be whatever, but the scientific establishment has a party line. Don’t they?

Guest: The way I look at what happens is, science will go along marking time through history, and somebody will come along like a Copernicus or a Galileo and he‘s able to assimilate more of the facts and construct more thorough theory that maybe fits more of the pieces of the puzzle together and the establishment will run him out. I mean, they burned Galaleos, you know, sidekick Bruno, they burned him, they burned the poor guy. And it turned out that that he was right.

Hridy: I would say – and I’ll stand by this and you can you can argue if you want, but I‘m going to stick by my guns – there is something extremely medieval about the modern academic establishment. It is just like that. If you don‘t adopt a certain methodology, you are a heretic. I mean you are actually a heretic.

Guest: Certainly, certainly you stand out within, you don’t fit in, you don’t fit into your little notch.

Hridy: I don’t know when the last time is you went to Stanford and talked to the genetic engineers there. I don’t know how big your daily world is. But you know there are things going on you may not know about. The general point I am making is when you select a particular methodology, your selection definitely reveals something about the types of expectations and assumptions you have about what you are going to find. Definitely, I mean it’s obvious. So, accepting that point, if we study the types of linguistic analysis and this analysis and that analysis, I want to know what is there in the modern philosophical approach to reality or to truth, which indicates any awareness on there part what they are searching for is a person.

Guest: I don’t think they have that expectation in mind.

Hridy: That’s exactly my point. They do not have in mind any expectation that the truth is personal and therefore, I say it is fundamentally irrational because even if you do find an impersonal truth – let’s say even if you do find one – it’s still not going to explain you.

Guest: But a scientist would never approach an experiment with expectations. That would change the experiment.

Hridy: Ooohh, I think you had better study the philosophy of science. I say it’s not even conceivable you could perform an experiment unless you had some specific goal in mind. How would you design the experiment? You must be looking for something. Unless, let’s say for...

Guest: Correctness or noncorrectness.

Hridy: But you you must have some idea, some general parameters of what type of entity you are going to find because to detect an entity you have to have an instrument. If it’s visual you have a microscope or a telescope. If it’s...

Guest: The senses are extensions of their own

Hridy: Exactly. Either you are looking for sound or something you can see (you are looking for some type of thing) and depending on the type of entity you expect to find you bring in particular instruments to sense them. Also the very fact you are looking for an entity means you expect to find it there.

Guest: Because, it’s just like for ex..

[Guest guest]

Hridy: Exactly, but you feel still this is the place where you have to look. And basically, like they say in science, we are trying to disprove things or if we can’t disprove it then we accept it. But still, the real goal is to disprove – I think, not in a spirit on nihilism, cause scientist aren’t nihilist, they actually believe in knowledge – things in the Socratic spirit of removing false thesis and ideas so we can get to the real truth. The idea is that the truth is cluttered up as so many misconception. So if we take away all the misconceptions then we’ll find the truth. Or if someone proposes - Socrates said – something you put it to the acid test. You try in every possible way to disprove it to make sure you’re accepting something really solid so you don‘t just accept something blindly or dogmatically. First you have to assert something, then you can try and disprove it. So you’ve asserted something that there is nothing to disprove.

 

When you’re moving and you’re trying to find something to assert. Obviously when you perform an experiment trying to find something, you design you’re experiment based on your expectations. Without lots of expectations, how could you even become a scientists? For example, you hope or assume (ultimately it is a type of informed hope) the universe really does operate according to standard laws. There is a law of gravity and if you go to the moon or wherever there is also a law of gravity. Mathematical principles really have a type of universality; it’s not that just that two and two are four on the earth, but it’s a fact everywhere that two and two are four. Anyway, what I mean to say is there is the idea the world is –– as the Greeks called –– a cosmos, an ordered abode in which reason has a function. That human reason is capable to explore the universe. There are all types of expectations and assumptions. There is the metaphysical dream or hope that the more we study the more we’ll know. That knowledge is good. That‘s certainly an assumption. Knowledge is good, ignorance isn’t. Somehow we are edifying ourselves by knowledge. The more a man knows about the world, somehow the better a man he’ll be and that we can know. There are zillions of assumptions actually. So, when you conduct a particular experiment, of course you have certain expectations. You are hoping to find the explanation of this and you suspect it may be this kind of thing. So because I suspect it may be this, lets bring in these kind of instruments so if it is what I think it is we’ll catch it. There are all kinds of things like that.

 

You‘ve already admitted that methodology definitely reveals something about your expectations about what you are going to find. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have the right instruments to perceive it if it’s there. So in the same way, let’s say you wanted to begin with the hypothesis the absolute truth is in some way personal because if it wasn’t it couldn‘t really explain our existence. So then, what would be an appropriate methodology? Would a methodology which doesn‘t involve any etiquette or personal sensitivity be appropriate? I say the answer is no. You‘ve admitted that in the scientific or analytic fields, they don‘t have any expectation of finding a personal truth. And I say if they don‘t have that expectation, that’s a problem. Why don‘t they have that expectation? That‘s just there own opinion, there is nothing rational about that.

 

To assume the absolute is not a person is not a rational assumption. For example, I read in a book by D.J. O’Conner, he’s a British scholar who wrote a history of western philosophy. He actually says (this is the view of Conk, that Frenchman and the view of many other thinkers since him) that in primitive forms of thinking, we tend to explain phenomena in terms of personal entities like a wind god or rain god. This is an example of primitive thinking. Of coarse, we’ve definitely proved it is anthropomorphism rather that just assumed it because we’ve obviously proved there isn’t a wind god or a rain god. So now that‘s primitive thinking and then Conk says that man slowly frees himself from this primitive thinking and begins to understand that actually the real cause of everything is just blind chance – as Joc Manode says – and mechanical forces are ultimately the explanation. Now lets say I’m dealing with you and rather than deal with your personality, I’m just looking at the joints in your knee or elbow. In other words I’m just just looking at you like one inspects a machine. I ignore what you say, I ignore your feelings and everything. Now if I just treat you like a machine and don’t have any sensitivity that you are a person, my dealing with you that way would actually be primitive.

Guest: ???

Hridy: But if, no, not studying you. If I actually treated you... What if everyone in this room suddenly decided you were just a machine?

Guest: They’d be negating my personality.

Hridy: Yes, and that would be a primitive way of treating a guest. Therefore I say, understanding the universe exclusively in mechanical terms is primitive thinking. Being insensitive to the personality which is actually there in nature.

 

You see? This is a very interesting challenge which cannot be brushed away as easily as some of these people think. You just like pooh pooh it. You just like put a little derogatory label on it, “Hu hu hu, anthropomorphism, how quaint. I thought that went out with the caveman.” And then you just sort of wisk it away. It is not like that. If you really want to stay in a philosophical arena, you can’t get rid of the idea so easily, you have to actually deal with it. You’re gonna have to deal with all the consistencies in that position. According to that position, there is some consistent relationship between the observer and the observed. In other words, the observer is personal and he’s observing a personal reality. Now you may say he projects his personality onto reality, but I don‘t find that at all to be a reasonable explanation.

Guest: Why?

Hridy: Because there is nothing to recommend it. It’s just someone saying something. I think something could be considered reasonable when you can show that it has some logical merit. I don’t find any logical merit in that statement. It just seems like someone saying something. Well, what is the logical merit in it?

Guest: That there is a personality... that there is a projection?

Hridy: To say when I observe or when I perceive or believe in a personal reality… By personal reality I mean of course there are mechanical things in this world and so on, everyone knows it. The universe is in a sense a cosmic machine. But that over and above the mechanical reality there is a higher personal reality which gives purpose to everything and which ultimately explains things. In other words, I see a personal reality. Now, if someone says that you are just projecting your own personal qualities into the universe. That would be one argument.I say what is the logic in that argument? You can say anything.

Guest: Well it’s it would be raised as one possibility that this could be an either a philosopher would say, Yes, there is a God and there’s a personal God like you say. That we can perceive a personality in the universe and perceive the mechanics of the universe.

Hridy: Well, he can’t perceive a personality. Now, other philosophers could . Plato could certainly perceive something personal about the universe, therefore he has his demiurge, his universal engineer. And other philosophers also. Thomas Aquaintus certainly found something personal in As far as ??? that the demiurge can be perceived by Plato. What? He intuitively perceived that there was such a thing and even Aristotle talks about a prime mover that attracts the universe. Now these are crude concepts that certainly haven’t been worked out in a serious theistic way. But still, it is not strict impersonalism. Plato for example, had nothing but scorn for empirical science.

Guest: Well the forms are very impersonal.

Hridy: That‘s a fact and that‘s why Plato himself finally became dissatisfied with them. If you read in his dialogue the Sophist where where the lliadic stranger says to Theatatis that Isn‘t this actually a weird philosophy where the highest reality is not living and has no soul and they say Yes it is very strange indeed. In other words, toward the end, Plato decided this is actually a very strange idea that living forms don’t have life, don’t have soul, don‘t have consciousness. The universe didn‘t make sense. So, actually that is why he did begin to bring in the concept of the soul. My assertion is because certain methods themself embody certain presumptions about the truth, the method itself yields a particular vision of the truth. In other words, if you adopt a method which by its own nature as a process is an impersonal method –– the method doesn’t embody any type of personal sensitivity to a personal truth, of course it’s going to yield impersonal results. Because the method is limited. Krsna says that Himself in the Bhagavad-gita, ?????????? As you approach Me, I reciprocate with you. If you approach God impersonally, He’ll also reveal an impersonal truth because Within God you will find impersonal reality. You’ll find everything is there in God. But ultimately He is a person. If God were not ultimately a person, the whole being of God couldn’t be motivated because on top would be something impersonal and hence without motivation. But God is acting and God does reciprocate because ultimately He is a person. So if you approach Him impersonally that’s how He’ll reciprocate. If you choose a method which is really only appropriate for finding impersonal truth, then God will reciprocate with you and He will yield you the result you want. It is just like you have a microscope. A microscope is useful only for certain types of entities. Now, what if you foolishly assumed, that only things that could be perceived by a microscope were real. That’s the definition of truth. Truth is that which can be perceived by a microscope.